Hi Kevin! * Kevin Mark <kmark+debian-devel@pipeline.com> [050106 05:52]: > > What is the target group of your diagramm? > I wanted to visualize the deb lifecycle for my understanding of 'the > debian way'. So I was the 'target'. I asked for comments here and there > to fill in missing bits. And once I did it, I thought others may want to > see it to see if it helped them see how Debian works. Ah, okay, then the diagramm is quite okay, since you are a different target group than the one I had in mind ;) > > Since I don't think people > > without deeper knowledge of Debian will find your diagram easy to > > understand because, partly because of the akronyms, partly because you > > try to explain everything at once. > Should I make a 2nd page of explanations? Should I include a small key > for a few acronyms? Yes, a legend for the acronyms would be fine. When I saw your diagram, the very first was the "DD .deb". Since I didn't saw the security team and the others, I was wondering, what the "DD" should mean, since I thought: "Every .deb comes from a Debian Developer (the members of the security team are DDs, too, and didn't noticed the seperate field for the security team), so it doesn't makes sense to point out, that the .deb is from a DD, therefore this DD can't mean Debian Developer". When I later saw the "security team .deb" field, I understood, that I my thought was very wrong. Additonally I think it would be usefull to use bigger arrows (really big arrows, as wide as the entire field) pointing from testing to frozen, and from frozen to stable, to make clear, that this arrows don't present single packages, but entire releases. Finally the arrow from "DD .deb" to stables "proposed updates" should not cross unstable packages. Yours sincerely, Alexander
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature